steven jones admitted he was wrong bout the wtc7 collapse time. he admitted that he IGNORED THE EVIDENCE. lol, so what other BS have you guys been swallowing from this guy and others like him?
ItWasTyped. com for the story and MORE on conspiracy theories
ZioNazis did 9/11. They control the monetary & majority of military power of the world. 9/11 was not an inside job unless you believe the people know that the 'god' on the dollar bill is the 'Synagogue of Satan' Rev 2:9 & bow to it. Many demolicans & republicrats do. Are a treasonous kippah wearing cabal members like GWB insiders? They hate the US constitution & call common working people goy & chattel. I voted for Russ Feingold & Charlie Chaplin is my hero I am not antiSemitic but antiZioNazi.
@wiscokiddd Somebody finally got me to look at a video of bldg 7 and I thought he was joking when he asked me if I thought it was a demo. I started laughing and asked him, "why wouldn't I think it was a demo". He told me the gov. said it fell because of fire and it wasn't a demo. I thought he was B/Sn me. I told him that I even heard the owner of the building say it was a demo. Then he started crackin up because I still didn't know they were saying it wasn't a demo. Imagine my surprise.
What the fuck kind of censorship is on this page? If you put any capitals on this page or 2 letters in a row...like $ twice-then the fucking comment will not print? What the fuck is that?
Folks, it IS important that you show your sympathy with those seeking a new investigation, but it is important too, to really sign the petitions actually demanding a new, real, IMPARTIAL investigation:
Lets see, if all it takes to perfectly bring down a massive building is jet fuel and some fire then why the hell ever go through the hassle of hiring a demolition company. Just pour jet fuel all over the build and set it ablaze. Right? Wake up sheep!!! To perfectly demolish a build into its footprint requires strategically placed explosives not a plane crash and some fire!
lol of course burning jet fuel alone can't do anything but stripping all fireproofing + taking out many of the columns/floors with an explosion and having the remaining columns heat up exposed until they lose a lot of their integrity kinda will. Maybe if the towers were a regular girder cage structure like the empire state building then they wouldn't have fell. Blame whoever you want for the airplanes but really, the airplanes are enough to take the towers down thermite or no thermite.
@EvEnt372 Sorry, its never been proven conclusively that the fire proofing was stripped, the fires could not get hot enough and did not cover enough of the floors to heat up all the steel to failure points and even though the planes exploded on impact, that had no effect on the rest of the towers so they should have resisted any collapse since they were made of stronger materials designed to hold up all the live and dynamic loads above them plus a 300+% safety factor
@lexicon008 These floors pretty much get sandblasted with airplane parts, I really think it is very much enough to strip fireproofing and not to mention fully expose the core since it is sealed only by drywall. The floor trusses which have the highest surface area should be to blame since they are the only connecting component between the core columns and the exterior columns as they sag and fail less keeps the vertical components from buckling.
@lexicon008 As for the safety factor, I really don't think it possible for the lower floors to take the falling upper in the areas where the outside columns were snapped by the 767 and that is what you see in the collapse as those areas go down first dragging the rest with it sideways. Also seen is the outside columns straining inwards from the buckling floor girders just before they snap causing the collapse. The inside floors supported by these girders clearly pancake first going down.
@EvEnt372 One thing people forget about the collapse is that the antenna dropped first. Yes there was bowing, but if the antenna dropped first that means the core columns collapsed first, not the outer walls. This is not likely given the sheer strength and amount of connections needed to collapse the core. Even mist admits that only between 13 and 21% of the core was affected by the crashes. What happened to the other 80ish% that caused it to collapse?? A demo takes out the core first..cont
@EvEnt372 Also consider this, Nist claims the trusses sagged in WTC 1 and 2 due to fire. If they didn't no collapse. Yet they claim the steel in WTC 7 expanded due to fire..if it didn't again no collapse. So how do they explain it sagging in one scenario and expanding in the other? If you were to have expansion in WTC 1 and 2 then no collapse, if it sagged in WTC 7 then no collapse. Interesting huh
@lexicon008 So how do they explain it sagging in one scenario and expanding in the other? Simple. Nist is a government agency.Government agencies are corrupt liars. The government lies & the governmental agencies swear to their lies.
Need i remind you of Iran-contra-cocaine? Of that's right they never published the cocaine part in the media did they?
Pure scum.Reagan-selling weapons to Iran our supposed enemy.Clinton-selling missile secrets to China-gee funny how they were his $ supporters.
@EvEnt372 Ok so lets get this straight,the planes crashed and sandblasted fireproofing and dry wall away, yet people who were on the floors that were hit survived? And how exactly did the plane "sandblast" the fire proofing unless is disintegrated? if it did that then how did it manage to damage the columns and beams if it was the consistency of sand? Do you see the flaw here? The whole fire proofing argument is flawed since the planes did not hit the entire floor at once. cont
@EvEnt372 it did not remove the whole floors fire proofing. Thus only parts of the floor were effected and thus you would have assymetric damage and assymetric collapse. you wont have a symetrical collapse of the whole floor in any impact scenario.
As for the collapses. the floors below the impact zone had held up the wieght of all the floors above them for 30 years. They were designed to hold them and the maximum live/dynamic loads they could endure PLUS a safety factor of atleast 300%. cont
@EvEnt372 the exterior columns were designed to hold up to 2000% their live and dynamic load limits. This means that even if the upper floors dropped onto them they columns would at the very least stop the collapse for a brief period of time. Look at the work of David Chandler, he has shown that the upper floor underwent constant acceleration, that is not possible unless the floors below offered 0 resistance. If they resisted we would see a jolt as each floor resisted, we do not see this.
@EvEnt372 The towers were also designed to have all the perimeter columns on 2 sides removed and then be exposed to a 100 mph wind and still not collapse. And btw, the whole pancake theory was discounted along time ago, the current is the inward bowing theory. This theory is also ridiculous since it requires the trusses to sag something like 50 inches and testing has shown that they wouldn't sag even 1/3 that much in hotter and longer burning fires.
if you can't tell it was our gov and israel and therefore Britain you are an idiot. watch ODIGO calls two hours before 911. But don't miss, mossad caught in van on 9-11 "filled with explosives" gw bridge
If the Calcium and Sulphur could possibly be dissociated from each other rom the wall board , you would also find the Calcium embedded in the steel pores as well as the Sulphur !
The amount of people it would take just to gut and rig and repair the towers would be massive, it would take months, maybe a year! The towers were massive buildings, with all those people and all that time, truthers think not one of them would say a word! Not one of them would feel guilt or get upset with the govt for making them involved in mass murder, none of them would ever say a word, not a chance in a million years!
@Born2Flesh Really? I had no idea you were an explosives technician! Where did you learn your trade? When was the last time you worked with this never before seen "thermate"? How many buildings have you set up for demolition? Tell me, how exactly does this never before seen "thermate" work exactly? What part of the demolition process are you best at? How exactly is the chemical composition of this never before seen "thermate" different from "thermite"? Why isn't even thermite used in demolition?
Controlled demo would require all buildings be gutted, thousands of critical supports be cut. plumbing, electrical, communication HVAC would all have to be removed and replaced in every floor. Many thousands of pounds of explosives planted, miles of det cord laid throughout every floor. Thousands of sheets of drywall and other wall coverings would have to be hauled out and replaced. It didn't happen.
that's not true. If the charges were made of thermate, and prefabricated to fit certain areas, it would not take much time to apply and would not take that many men to do so.
There isn't the SLIGHTEST indication of "controlled demolition". Steel covered in concrete turns to a dusty, chunky mess when the inner steel structure bends and twists, chunks of concrete explode off the steel structure, that's a fact. The lower floors were undamaged until the upper floors collapsed, controlled demo. starts from the bottom up, not the top down.
that's not true.....and there are many videos and eyewitness reports of huge secondary explosions in the lower level of all the buildings. Your logic is flawed, and I recommend you take another look.
@Born2Flesh I don't care if someone says they heard ten million "secondary explosions", "secondary explosion" does not mean "controlled demolition". I challenge you to find any large building fire that didnt have explosions going off! It's a common feature of large building fires. Do yourself a favor and talk to the actual firemen who were there, as I did. Do yourself a favor and speak to demolition experts, as I did! You are being spoon fed a bunch of crap that is cooked up by truthers.
@Born2Flesh You will never convince me to believe crap that I know did not happen. The truther scenario is a massive fabrication of impossibilities. Every claim they make has been destroyed countless times. They are laughable at best. If you actually educated yourself on each claim, one by one, learned about the science involved with each truther claim, you would quickly realize how idiotic they are for even suggesting the crap they make up! They're claims are more than flawed, they are lies.
I'm not a "truther", you stupid ass....and I',m not here to convince you of a damn thing. The only thing that I see impossible about 9/11 is, the whole thing.
Building 7 was demolished with explosives. There's some insurance scam there so that's why that's hushed. Hence the traces of thermite. The towers were taken down by two jetliners.
Forget the too many clues in all this...Watch the towers go with new eyes. Turning to dust before it even fell far. How could we have been so naive? Need to start using more than 10% of our noodles before they get cooked. Makes a hardhat guy wanna line it with tinfoil
Excellent testimony and it's great to be getting them. Previously, I had only heard Prof. Steven Jones and Niels Harrit for scientists, and had read some of Kevin Ryan's writings, so it's great to now be getting testimonies also from Jeff Farrer and Mark Basile. The new upcoming AE911Truth documentary evidently will be explosive. It will surely tens or hundreds of millions of viewers and should be able to get previously unconvinced people to reconsider that demolition was used.
Amazing how Jeff’s intro story and choice of wording is so similar to George Bush’s story learning about the crashes while sitting in a classroom in Florida.
you dont have to be an architect or engineer to be 100% certain that WTC 1,2&7 were destroyed with explosives. All you need is a look at the facts: the dna reports (1100 'missing bodies' 1400 people blasted to bits, 70 of 343 FDNY recovered, unusual 99day fires, the speed and symmetry in wtc 1,2,7 -the explosiveness of 1&2, wtc7's implosion, FEMA BPAT Appdx C -molten metal. squibs, Pls Watch the video NORTH TOWER EXPLODING by David Chandler and then tell us what you think
@palasta If this is a lie, as you say, then there's only one thing you need to do and it's to prove that it's a lie. You won't succeed and probably know this, so you prefer to present empty allegations.
There's no such thing as a “debunker” when it comes to 9/11. There are only stooges spreading disinformation and telling outright lies. There’s no science behind anything they offer to support the official version of events which is why they have to resort to calling people kooks.
The official conspiracy theory is nothing more than an obscene fairytale that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Go to A&E911Truth to get involved in saving our country from these criminals.
@KevinMerck You'll be saying there's no such thing as BUNKUM next
& straight away after uttering the densest BUNKUM package it has ever been my misfortune to witness
Shame upon your worthlessness, that you so utterly and baselessly slander any & everyone who may have abilities you so obviously don't possess in the slightest degree
It's a worthlessness that should find itself alienated & alone, by rights and naturally
Go & learn something, anything, & also perhaps to respect your elders & betters
Spot on Kev. Scientific evidence is the only worthwhile evidence. Traces of nanothermite were found in the dust, and that is that. Forget about any other elaborate nonsense.
If you say you believe something these days, most idiots think that means it must be true. It is possible to say anything without evidence these days and most of the people will be fooled. That is why I check my facts whenever I can. It is also why I became a truther, because I check my facts and found the OS wanting.
I have no idea where the plan was hatched. Neither has Chomsky. You misheard him, he doesn't say HE believes it was hatched in UAE and Germany, listen carefully, he says, "the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan but was probably implemented in the UAE and Germany, so they essentially had no evidence so they couldn't present it....." Selective hearing again?
What are you talking about now? Who do YOU think was responsible for 9/11 and where was the plot hatched? N.B. There is no evidence that it was Al Q and Afghanistan. So, do you have any evidence of where it was hatched? No, neither do I, that is why we need a new investigation. The only difference is that you are STILL taken in by what the FBI said they "believed" - even though it is now apparent they had no evidence - and I am not!!
"Try doing a proper rebuttal paper and get it published in a quality peer-reviewed journal. Good luck."
The entirety of the Twoof movement has nothing interesting out in a peer reviewed journal. There are many peer-reviewed paper out supporting (by and large, with some minor differences) the NIST story of fire-induced collapses.
I can wait till your side does something of relevance.
@ThePeage "perhaps you haven't seen that even Naom Chomski is changing his tune?"
a) Moving goal posts big time.
b) What difference does it make where the planning was done? He says the plan was not hatched in Afghanistan (OBL), but in the UAE (KSM) and Germany (Atta). So he in effect says, Al Qaeda did it, with hijacked planes! He "merely" criticizes the cause for war.
c) No change of tune from his earlier chastising of the intellectually bankrupt twoof movement at all. It isn't even mentiond
You are, once again, putting the cart before the horse - just as you did when you suggested that friction (ffs!) caused the rise in the temperature of the steel before the building collapsed. Are you suggesting that gravity caused the columns in WTC7 to offer no resistance (all at the same time across the entire building, for several floors) BEFORE the collapse actually occurs, as it must do to be in complete freefall? Why do we EVER need CD?
"just as you did when you suggested that friction"
And i tell you again, i never suggested this regarding WTC7. Read and understand... o wait... yea, we have a special case of retard twoofer here. Nevermind.
"Are you suggesting that gravity caused the columns in WTC7 to offer no resistance"
Nope, i suggest the collapse started with the fall of the roof, what you are not willing to see, because it would nullify your precious argument.
Yes, it does, the falling penthouse AND the preceding destruction witnessed by several indiviuals indicates a progressive collapse.
/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
"Can you here that?" ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon.""
Why do you think are they saying this? Because someone spilled the beans, informed the public because Plan A didn't work? Or simply because it really was brought down by fire...
Interesting that guy saying "that building is about to blow up" don't you think? Why would anyone ever say that of a building that was going to collapse because of fire? Circumstantial evidence, just like the "evidence" that you offer, of course but I can just as easily say "Why do you think they are saying this?"
In any case, "the building was unsafe and looked as if it was going to collapse therefore NT hasn't been found" ANOTHER logical fallacy. Well done.
Again, it didn't just look like it was going to collapse:
"CAN YOU HEAR THAT!"
There was movement in the building. The crumbling was heard and seen...
/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA
"It is DEFINITELY going down."
"Interesting that guy saying "that building is about to blow up" don't you think?"
Because it is a term in everyday language when a building is going to collapse. Why would someone say such thing, when the official explanation was seeded?
Really? A term in everyday language for a building about to collapse? Perhaps you could find an example to support that claim?
What do you mean, "Why would someone say such thing, when the official explanation was seeded?" The idea of "seeding" is that only the people doing the "seeding" are aware of it.
Anyway, another argument from ignorance from you and more bleating on about something that is irrelevant regarding the evidence of the NT. Well done again!
"The idea of "seeding" is that only the people doing the "seeding" are aware of it."
How did the one who said "its about to blow up" knew it was about to get controlled demolished when no one except the perpetrators were aware of this? Explain.
"Perhaps you could find an example to support that claim?"
Your lack of comprehension and rational thinking is evident.
"the evidence of the NT"
This evidence has been nullified, the incredibility revealed, get over it.
"This evidence has been nullified, the incredibility revealed, get over it."
What? By idiots on the Internet claiming the NT is "exploding nano-paint" ?
I will wait for a real scientific rebuttal, thank you.
For someone who claims Bentham's is a crap, pay-to-publish journal with no peer-review etc., you seem very keen to accept bollocks from people who can't even get a paper into Benthams!!!
"you seem very keen to accept bollocks from people who can't even get a paper into Benthams!!!"
Look whos talking. You didn't even understand when i was talking about "max. energy output" regarding the MJ of the impacts + deflagrating/burning jet fuel. You insisted the incident to be "ordinary office fires". O please...
There appears to have been foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse. I have no problem with anyone thinking that part of a building will collapse because of fire, I can even accept, if you say so, that a term that would not be used in the UK, might be used in the US - divided by a common language as we are - but there is no way anyone could have known about a CD-like collapse of a SF building because of fire - they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before.
"but there is no way anyone could have known about a CD-like collapse of a SF building because of fire - they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before."
Of course they could. They knew how those building were designed. It was "spineless" design. If it would've been a "solid core design", i would be 100% on your side. ;D
"they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before."
Cmon. You should know better. Or do you remember a burning skyscraper (similar build) in a metropole with the fire service nearly incapacitated? It was a worst case scenario. Right, something like this never happened before.
PS: No more evasive maneuvers pls. Give me a direct explanation + what indicates that WTC7 only looked like it was going to collapse. How do you know that?
What are you asking for? What do you want a direct explanation of that you think I would have the answer for? I would remind you that I am asking for an investigation - if you want answers, you should be asking for that too.
True. When I started to look into 9/11, I mostly looked at articles etc that supported the OS. One of the things that struck me very early on is that those supporting the OS seemed to switch effortlessly from one theory to another. E.g. I read a 2006 article that stated the collapse of WTC7 was ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the damage to its facade. This was supported by Skeptics website. When the NIST report came out in 2008, the site fully supported fire-induced collapse.
@PapaOystein "If we bombard the mainstream newspapers" So you think an argument that is 1% right may become 100% right if 100 bovines stampede with it? What if the argument is 0% right?"
What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't important what stance the mainstream media takes ... it just shouild be discussed.
I would like to see a programme about WTC7's collapse. I'd prefer to see a balanced approach but I wouldn't mind if they showed it and gave the NIST explanation...(2)
(2) You see, I have a suspicion that if more people saw the collapse of WTC7, even if they were given the NIST explanation (or maybe ESPECIALLY if they were given the NIST explanation ;o) ) more people would be asking questions about 9/11 generally.
Would you have any objection to a programme about WTC7 being aired on mainstream TV?
@ThePeage - What is the difference between nano thermite and nano (super)thermite, other than that you can apply nano (super) thermite as a spray, dipping , or spinning?
@ThePeage "if more people saw the collapse of WTC7, even if they were given the NIST explanation"
Most people have neither the time nor the educational background to understand the NIST reports. It was made by experts for experts, with a limited view to an audiance from politics.
"Would you have any objection to a programme about WTC7 being aired on mainstream TV?" - Not at all - if done fairly, with advise from independent engineers of the relevant fields of study. That rules out all of AE911T
OK - that would suit me too. No-one from NIST or any other government body, and no one from ae911T. Find experts from relevant fields who have never seen the collapse of WTC7 before - there are lots, I have personally met many, and get them to give their analysis. Oh dear... that would amount to a new investigation and you are against that aren't you?
@ThePeage "No-one from NIST or any other government body, and no one from ae911T."
Yeah, that would be cool. It would be quite ok to interview both sides, to motivate why such a docu is made in the first place (because there is a vocal cult on the internet).
"I have personally met many, and get them to give their analysis." - Did you give them the NIST report (and did they read it), or did you shower them with AE911T woo first? Give experts wrong info, and they'll draw wrong conclusions.
Quite the opposite. In fact, it was NIST's report on WTC7 that really turned me into a "truther" and I always encourage people to explore both sides of an argument. Your baseless assumptions are as wrong about that as they are about other aspects.
Please could you confirm that Harrit uses the word "heat" correctly in the video - where you claim he should have used the word "temperature"?
@ThePeage "In fact, it was NIST's report on WTC7 that really turned me into a "truther""
Don't give me crap. NCSTAR 1-9 has 730 pages (not counting tables of content etc), plus 120 pages Structural Analysis. You did not study that, and not without being guided by prejudice. No f.. way. I claim you have not even read (as opposed to study) that report fully at least once.
Harrit probably uses "heat" wrongly - he meant temperature. If not, he lied.
I read the precis, the FAQ's and checked the main text when I queried either. But believe what you like.
Harrit would've been wrong had he said "temperature". That you don't grasp this shows you do not have even a basic physics education - even Wiki has it right - look it up
"An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of heat." HEAT, get it?
There is no shame in not knowing this. The shame is in not admitting you are wrong.
@ThePeage "Harrit would've been wrong had he said "temperature" "
Are you deliberately playing dumb? The ONLY reason why thermite is used for anything at all is the "tremendous" TEMPERATURE it reaches, which you can use to melt and weld steel, for example. This, although the HEAT of that reaction is rather moderate, only 10% that of ordinary hydrocarbon fuels. So when Harrit starts with "thermite produces TREMENDOUS..." the only TRUE finish to the sentence is "TEMPERATURE". "Heat" would be a LIE
Look at this article. It is by a supporter of the OCT. Just see if you can spot any flaws or manipulations in it. Particularly, take a look at the graphic - taken from NIST's report. What would you say of this graphic if it was from a "truther" doc? Would you think it was plausible? What would you think if it formed part of a truther computer simulation of the collapse?
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory To Rest August 22nd, 2008
Yes, the one that had a predetermined conclusion (totally unscientific) and stated they found no evidence of explosives... until they were exposed. They didn't find because they didn't look. Someone else does look and they find evidence of highly exothermic material (possible explosives). Do the scientists at NIST say, "wow, we didn't look, maybe we should have done" or do they ignore it? Which would be more scientific and/or honest?
@ThePeage "Someone else does look and they find evidence of highly exothermic material (possible explosives)."
No. The incompetent or dishonest team of Harrit, Jones, Farrer e.al. did NOT find thermitic material. They found paint and primer. Their own data disproves their claims. Their SEMs show Kaolin pigments in the red and micaceous iron oxide, used in anti-corrosion primer, in the grey layer. Figure 29 shows that the chips don't react like actual nano-thermite.
@ThePeage It is absolutely necessary that you "truther" disciples see through the LIES of Harrit and Co. You MUST understand that thermite does NOT release "tremendous" heat - you must understand how LITTLE energy is released by thermite! Because it bears directly on any claim of demolition by thermite. A proper understanding of this exposes the LIES in the paper, and removes the idea of thermitic demolition from remotely possible to practically impossible.
Is that why you lied in an attempt to discredit Harrit? Because it is "absolutely necessary" that "truthers" see through the "lies" of others? Is that why you claim the DSC trace does not show an exothermic reaction? In the hope that people who are reading your crap believe you because they've never used a DSC and don't know how it works or what that trace shows?
@ThePeage "why you claim the DSC trace does not show an exothermic reaction?"
Liar. I di not claim that at all. Where and when did I say that? QUOTE me!
Let me walk you through this:
1. Did Harrit say that "thermite produces tremendous heat", yes or no?
2. How much heat does thermite produce?
3. Is that tremendous? Compare the value with the heat of some other, and more ordinary, exothermic reactions, that you would say do not release "tremendous" heat.
@ThePeage "I'm not wasting any more time on you." Running away. Another time-tested "truther" tactic. I'll make it easier on you, so you don't have to waste oo much time: Does thermite produce an extraordinary (tremendous) amount of heat, yes or no? To make your decision easier, here are some values for the HEAT of some exothermic reactions in kJ/g: Thermite: 3.96 Nitroglycerine: 6.4 Human tissue: 10 (on average) Cow dung: 15 Wood: 18 Plastics: 23-41 Jet fuel: 42.8 Hydrogen: 143
@ThePeage "Read the answer they give. What question are they answering?"
You want me to quote NIST as stating, too, that thermite releases tremendous heat, right? Would that make a false statement true? NIST is talking sloppily there (they, too, ought to have said "temperature"), and I generously assumed that Niels was merely sloppy, too, when he said heat. Because in reality, if you MEAN heat, then the adjective "tremendous" is a LIE.
I asked what question they were answering. Read the reply - are they answering the question they are posing or are they answering a different QUESTION? This is very basic obfuscation - answer a different question from the one posed and hope the person asking the question doesn't notice. What question would their answer be answering? Oh - I really have better things to do - believe what you want.
@ThePeage "I asked what question they were answering"
Whoops! That goal post moved quickly!! Were we not discussing Harrit, Farrer and their shitty paper? Were we not discussing the FALSE claim that "thermite produces tremendous heat"? Can we please finish that discussion? All you need to do to finish that discussion is to answers the easy yes/no question:
Does thermite release "tremendous" heat - yes or no?
The thermite reaction produces tremendous heat. That is what Harrit said and this is accurate. Thank you and goodnight.
I am not moving the goalposts - we've done this to death and since you have lied about what Harrit said and when I proved you had lied, you then lied about what you had said. I can't see the point of going on. See (2)
What I was trying to point out to you - had you grasped my question - was that the evidence of NT is largely irrelevant... see(2)
See my reply above. If you want to waste your time ranting, be my guest but you would be far better looking at NIST's Report and finding out if that is correct than the irrelevent exercise of trying to convince yourself that Harrit et al are wrong.
I could not agree more. How could a study that produces FALSE evidence (or, more precisely, interprets the evidence erroneously and comes to false conclusions) ever be relevant?
Fine! Disregard it completely and get a separate, independent team to look at the dust - NIST didn't do it! However, if this were done and the chips were found to be present and were found to be highly sophisticated, highly exothermic nanotechnology and no other explanation for their presence could be found, I would say the material might have CONTRIBUTED to the collapses, wouldn't you?
@ThePeage "if this were done and the chips were found to be present and were found to be highly sophisticated, highly exothermic nanotechnology and no other explanation for their presence could be found"
It's been done already, by Farrer, Harrit and Co:
- No, they are not highly sophisticated
- No, they are not particularly highly energetic
- Yes, another explanation can easily be found: Paint.
So are you saying their work can be trusted now? I thought you claim they are incompetent and dishonest - that they can't be trusted to do anything correctly. So, this being the case, surely you would want proper, decent scientists to study the chips. They have been show NOT to be paint because paint does not become energetic at 430 C and leave Fe-rich microspheres in the residue - no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
@ThePeage "So are you saying their work can be trusted now? ... surely you would want proper, decent scientists to study the chips."
No. Do the logic. There are two possibilities:
a) either, their data is good. Then I know already it isn't thermite, not very energetic, nothing to worry about, and very likely paint anyway. No need for further study then
b) Or their data is bad. In which case I have even less reason to consider the chips relevant.
(2) .. because even if this paper had not been produced, even if no NT had been found or if they turn out to be liars, wrong or stupid, the absence of their evidence does not SUPPORT the OS. Debunking evidence FOR an alternative “theory” does not mean that a wrong one is correct by default. The NIST Report on WTC3 is flawed (at best). See (3)
(3) You said you wouldn’t mind a documentary about WTC7. What would you think if Sunder was interviewed on the programme about their investigation and was asked, “Did you test for any accelerants, incendiaries or explosives?” What would you think when he says, “No. We only considered the possibility of fire” What would you think and, maybe more importantly, what do you think viewers would think?
@ThePeage "What would you think when he says, “No. We only considered the possibility of fire”"
I would think he was being responsible with his use of taxpayers' money.
I would expect the interviewers to ask him why they did not test for it, and I would expect Sunder to give very good reasons. Mainly: There was none of the INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs that characterize explosive CDs, and no known method or theory of thermite demolitions. But there was fire, and fire destroys stuff.
You are kidding!!! Taxpayers money was completely wasted cos NIST had a predetermined conclusion! You swallow their "loud bang" explanation for not looking for accelerants and incendiaries??? (Even excluding the possibility of the use of non-conventional, less brisant explosives). Ask the average arsonist which is better, fire on its own .. or fire plus an incendiary. Incendiaries don't go bang, bang - and fire alone doesn't destroy multiple columns within seconds either.
Jones, Harrit, Farrer had a predetermined conclusion, which they wrote down even though it was contradicted by their own data (7.5 > 3.9, Fig. 29 shows marked dissimilarity with nanothermite, SEM images show Kaolin)
"You swallow their "loud bang" explanation" - yes, for no explosive CD comes without one. Or can you show one?
"Ask the average arsonist" - I trust experienced fire investigators with relevant schientific degreed a tad more.
Yes, paint. The plate-like particles rich in Al, Si and O look just like Kaolin - same size (nm-range), too! And guess what elements Kaolin is composed of, huh? Al, Si, and O (and H, which Farrer generally glosses over). And guess what Kaolin and Fe2O3 make together? Orange-red PAINT.
@noozilander "So does orange-red PAINT react with a highly exothermic reaction" - If it is resin-based, absolutely YES. Remember: thermite CANNOT explain the 6 and 7.5 kJ/g, it only has 3.9. But the Harrit/Farrer paper says, correctly that the inorganics are in a matrix of organic material, and THAT is the highly exothermic stuff in their samples! Pretty much ALL organic materials are more highly energetic than thermite! And no, it is NOT dangerous, as micron layers are so thin!
@noozilander "The tests that Farrer and co. did shows this to be untrue."
Look at Farrer's (Jones' ...) paper: "It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g"
Now look up "energy density" on wikipedia, and find the values for thermite (given there as 4.0), wood, jet fuel. paper is shredded wood, so to say, and should have similar energy density
@noozilander "why is the U.S. military developing nano-thermite?"
Good question. Do you have an answer?
Do you have an idea why Farrer and Co. state that thermite releases a maximum of 3.9 kj/g and never more? Are they wrong? Why does Wikipedia state it? Is WP wrong?
Or could it be that you just don't understand the thermodynamics of the thermite reaction vs. combustion of hydrocarbons?
@PapaOystein says "Do you have an idea why Farrer and Co. state that thermite releases a maximum of 3.9 kj/g and never more?"
...probably because they were comparing what they witnessed to standard thermite and were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite.
@noozilander "(they) were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite."
They were indeed. Do you know what their opinion is where that extra energy came from - in other words, what the REALLY highly energetic material in the chips was? Hint: It isn't thermite, and it isn't nano-thermite.
You still haven't explained the by-product of the iron micro-spheres that Farrer and co. found as a result of igniting what you think is orange-red paint.......
@noozilander "You still haven't explained the by-product of the iron micro-sphere"
That's right. Do you think iron micro-spheres don't occur in ashes of hydrocarbon conflagrations?
"You seem to be arguing from the position of ego rather than reason and/or logic"
You are not arguing at all. I refer to the paper and provide data, and analyse it. You don't even understand it and dodge questions. You can't be the judge. Peage misrepresents what I say, moves goal posts and makes false statements.
@noozilander "By your logic they have nothing to gain in developing the smaller particles."
Wrong. I already told you one of the interesting properties of thermite. Hint: Energy density is NOT one of them. You have no idea what nanothermite is, right?
"(they) were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite"
They were indeed. And what is their explanation for the discrepancy, hm?
@noozilander "By your logic they have nothing to gain in developing the smaller particles."
No. That is by YOUR logic, because you seem to think that the interesting property of the (nano)thermite reaction is the energy (or heat) it realeases. That's what Farrer, Harrit etc. make you believe.
But that's wrong. I already gave you one interesting property, other than HEAT release. There are more interesting properties of nano-thermite. But you wouldn' know that, science-illiterate as you are.
And by the way, you are a pooper. You keep trashing the comment section with your garbage not knowing what are you talking about. In the post at jerk forum it reveals what kind of person you really are. You said that the gray layer is a primer, but when Mackey and sunstealer told you that it is oxidised steel, you just appealed to authority without any counter argument. "I guess I will have to retract comments"- what a douchebag...
@Lietuvispartizan "You said that the gray layer is a primer" - You are right, I did that following Sunstealer's lead, and you are right, as there is hardly any data available on the grey layer, the assertion rested on weak evidence. Farrer also has no clue what it is. I do not believe Mackey on authority. But if Sunstealer retracts his position, mine becomes too weak.
Would be good if you twoofers had the courage to retract sometimes.
"you just appealed to authority" - All twoofers do.
@PapaOystein When you will discover that the aluminum in your "kaolinite" can move around when you treat it with a solvent, and at the same time you could provide a reference to a chemical reaction by a clay mineral, which provides elemental iron. It would be sensational!
@noozilander "If it were true, what possible application would there be for thermite???"
While the HEAT (energy release) of the the thermite reaction is relatively low, the products reach tremendous TEMPERATURES. Sounds illogical, but only to a science illiterate. The reason is, thermite reaction releases no gasses that dissipate heat very quickly. The usefullness of thermite lies in its TEMPERATURE, not its HEAT.
It melts iron easily, but only very SMALL amounts per mass unit thermite
To drive the point home, noozilander: PAPER releases more energy when it burns that either thermite or the red-grey chip samples. Now what about wall paper? Wall paper is a LOT thicker than these red and grey layers! Can wallpaper burn? Absoluteky YES. Is wallpaper dangerous to buildings? Absolutely NO. Is an application of this red-orange paint dangerous? Absolutely NO, as it is less material, and less energetic material, than wallpaper! Farrer sells you for a fool!
@noozilander "Are you refusing to take medication for keeping your mood stable or what, ya fuckin' lunatic?"
You have never looked up the chemical and physical properties of either thermite or ordinary organic combustibles, you don't understand thermodynamics, and you scientific illiteracy shows. You probably have not read, much less understood, the Harrit/Farrer/... paper, and therefore can't understand why it's shit.
"You make NO sense."
I make a lot of sense, but you are too dumb to know
Peage doesn't properly understand thermodynamics and has no idea what "tremendous heat" is and what "tremendous temperature" is, and is therefore easily fooled by Harrot, Farrer and Co. Peage does not understand why 6 kJ/g means the highly energetic material is NOT POSSIBLY thermite, or nano-thermite.
You wouldn't know all that, because you are totally illiterate in physics and chemistry - you have failed to address even one scientific argument yet.
@PapaOystein It's the opposite. Sunstealer wrote that it is kaolin. The Stinktier, ElMondoHummus, said that: "aluminum atoms bound to silicon and oxygen atoms" and I agree. Aluminum-silicate will not separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. So pooper, it would become Sunstealer and you well to provide a reference for a swelling reaction by a clay particle with MEK comparable to that observed by the red/grey chips.
But it requires to raise your butt- so it's impossible to you to do it
"Aluminum-silicate will not separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK"
Did you see the plate-like particles? What are they, if not Kaolin? The sample they soaked in MEK was not analysed prior to soaking, and they think it has surface contaminations. Pretty worthless sample, They show the "after" state, but nit the "before" state,therefore we cannot know if anything got separated or had been separate all along.
@Lietuvispartizan "Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon"
We don't know if that region contained the same nano-structures. Maybe that specimen was contaminated with SiO2. The authors mention the possibility of such contamination.
As I said, that deprecates this particular analysis.
@PapaOystein If you are so sure that the science of Mssrs Jones, Harrit, Farrer and co. is wrong, then why don't you contact them and actively refute their evidence by scientific method? They want to find the scientific truth and would welcome your inquiry.
Or are you just another impotent Youtube debunker shill like so many others?
@ThePeage "Are you suggesting that "we don't know" means "we don't find out". Shame on you!"
And again, again, and yet again, you misrepresent what I write. You dishonesty, directed personally at me, starts to amount to libel, and character assassination. Why must you sink so low?
"We don't know" means "we don't know". And the reason we don't know is that Harrit, and Farrer, in their total incompetence, failed to find out in time. Their failure. Not mine. Shame on them.
@PapaOystein says "You dishonesty, directed personally at me, starts to amount to libel, and character assassination. Why must you sink so low?
"We don't know" means "we don't know". And the reason we don't know is that Harrit, and Farrer, in their total incompetence, failed to find out in time."
Well this is rich, Papa.
You cry about being libelled and your character (coughs!) being attacked, yet you are here to reply.
This has been flagged as spam show
steven jones admitted he was wrong bout the wtc7 collapse time. he admitted that he IGNORED THE EVIDENCE. lol, so what other BS have you guys been swallowing from this guy and others like him?
ItWasTyped. com for the story and MORE on conspiracy theories
culturebully3 3 months ago
ZioNazis did 9/11. They control the monetary & majority of military power of the world. 9/11 was not an inside job unless you believe the people know that the 'god' on the dollar bill is the 'Synagogue of Satan' Rev 2:9 & bow to it. Many demolicans & republicrats do. Are a treasonous kippah wearing cabal members like GWB insiders? They hate the US constitution & call common working people goy & chattel. I voted for Russ Feingold & Charlie Chaplin is my hero I am not antiSemitic but antiZioNazi.
wiscokiddd 6 months ago
@wiscokiddd Somebody finally got me to look at a video of bldg 7 and I thought he was joking when he asked me if I thought it was a demo. I started laughing and asked him, "why wouldn't I think it was a demo". He told me the gov. said it fell because of fire and it wasn't a demo. I thought he was B/Sn me. I told him that I even heard the owner of the building say it was a demo. Then he started crackin up because I still didn't know they were saying it wasn't a demo. Imagine my surprise.
amzuel420 6 months ago
What the fuck kind of censorship is on this page? If you put any capitals on this page or 2 letters in a row...like $ twice-then the fucking comment will not print? What the fuck is that?
ed11561 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Folks, it IS important that you show your sympathy with those seeking a new investigation, but it is important too, to really sign the petitions actually demanding a new, real, IMPARTIAL investigation:
w w w 2.ae911truth. org/signpetition. p h p
Thank you.
Funkadelic2 8 months ago
Lets see, if all it takes to perfectly bring down a massive building is jet fuel and some fire then why the hell ever go through the hassle of hiring a demolition company. Just pour jet fuel all over the build and set it ablaze. Right? Wake up sheep!!! To perfectly demolish a build into its footprint requires strategically placed explosives not a plane crash and some fire!
Kmost213 9 months ago 2
lol of course burning jet fuel alone can't do anything but stripping all fireproofing + taking out many of the columns/floors with an explosion and having the remaining columns heat up exposed until they lose a lot of their integrity kinda will. Maybe if the towers were a regular girder cage structure like the empire state building then they wouldn't have fell. Blame whoever you want for the airplanes but really, the airplanes are enough to take the towers down thermite or no thermite.
EvEnt372 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 Sorry, its never been proven conclusively that the fire proofing was stripped, the fires could not get hot enough and did not cover enough of the floors to heat up all the steel to failure points and even though the planes exploded on impact, that had no effect on the rest of the towers so they should have resisted any collapse since they were made of stronger materials designed to hold up all the live and dynamic loads above them plus a 300+% safety factor
lexicon008 8 months ago
@lexicon008 These floors pretty much get sandblasted with airplane parts, I really think it is very much enough to strip fireproofing and not to mention fully expose the core since it is sealed only by drywall. The floor trusses which have the highest surface area should be to blame since they are the only connecting component between the core columns and the exterior columns as they sag and fail less keeps the vertical components from buckling.
EvEnt372 8 months ago
@lexicon008 As for the safety factor, I really don't think it possible for the lower floors to take the falling upper in the areas where the outside columns were snapped by the 767 and that is what you see in the collapse as those areas go down first dragging the rest with it sideways. Also seen is the outside columns straining inwards from the buckling floor girders just before they snap causing the collapse. The inside floors supported by these girders clearly pancake first going down.
EvEnt372 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 One thing people forget about the collapse is that the antenna dropped first. Yes there was bowing, but if the antenna dropped first that means the core columns collapsed first, not the outer walls. This is not likely given the sheer strength and amount of connections needed to collapse the core. Even mist admits that only between 13 and 21% of the core was affected by the crashes. What happened to the other 80ish% that caused it to collapse?? A demo takes out the core first..cont
lexicon008 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 Also consider this, Nist claims the trusses sagged in WTC 1 and 2 due to fire. If they didn't no collapse. Yet they claim the steel in WTC 7 expanded due to fire..if it didn't again no collapse. So how do they explain it sagging in one scenario and expanding in the other? If you were to have expansion in WTC 1 and 2 then no collapse, if it sagged in WTC 7 then no collapse. Interesting huh
lexicon008 8 months ago
@lexicon008 So how do they explain it sagging in one scenario and expanding in the other? Simple. Nist is a government agency.Government agencies are corrupt liars. The government lies & the governmental agencies swear to their lies.
Need i remind you of Iran-contra-cocaine? Of that's right they never published the cocaine part in the media did they?
Pure scum.Reagan-selling weapons to Iran our supposed enemy.Clinton-selling missile secrets to China-gee funny how they were his $ supporters.
ed11561 6 months ago
@EvEnt372 Ok so lets get this straight,the planes crashed and sandblasted fireproofing and dry wall away, yet people who were on the floors that were hit survived? And how exactly did the plane "sandblast" the fire proofing unless is disintegrated? if it did that then how did it manage to damage the columns and beams if it was the consistency of sand? Do you see the flaw here? The whole fire proofing argument is flawed since the planes did not hit the entire floor at once. cont
lexicon008 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 it did not remove the whole floors fire proofing. Thus only parts of the floor were effected and thus you would have assymetric damage and assymetric collapse. you wont have a symetrical collapse of the whole floor in any impact scenario.
As for the collapses. the floors below the impact zone had held up the wieght of all the floors above them for 30 years. They were designed to hold them and the maximum live/dynamic loads they could endure PLUS a safety factor of atleast 300%. cont
lexicon008 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 the exterior columns were designed to hold up to 2000% their live and dynamic load limits. This means that even if the upper floors dropped onto them they columns would at the very least stop the collapse for a brief period of time. Look at the work of David Chandler, he has shown that the upper floor underwent constant acceleration, that is not possible unless the floors below offered 0 resistance. If they resisted we would see a jolt as each floor resisted, we do not see this.
lexicon008 8 months ago
@EvEnt372 The towers were also designed to have all the perimeter columns on 2 sides removed and then be exposed to a 100 mph wind and still not collapse. And btw, the whole pancake theory was discounted along time ago, the current is the inward bowing theory. This theory is also ridiculous since it requires the trusses to sag something like 50 inches and testing has shown that they wouldn't sag even 1/3 that much in hotter and longer burning fires.
lexicon008 8 months ago 3
if you can't tell it was our gov and israel and therefore Britain you are an idiot. watch ODIGO calls two hours before 911. But don't miss, mossad caught in van on 9-11 "filled with explosives" gw bridge
sssssjjjj1 9 months ago
If the Calcium and Sulphur could possibly be dissociated from each other rom the wall board , you would also find the Calcium embedded in the steel pores as well as the Sulphur !
WTC7SMOKINGUN 9 months ago
911 False Flag Attack.
pjt03 11 months ago
We have trolls.
Nellynoodlebums 11 months ago
This guy is HOT!
williamsimpson4 11 months ago
God Bless Jeff Farrer & other pursuit of truth. Keep it up, this research should be used in a court of law
pjt03 11 months ago
The amount of people it would take just to gut and rig and repair the towers would be massive, it would take months, maybe a year! The towers were massive buildings, with all those people and all that time, truthers think not one of them would say a word! Not one of them would feel guilt or get upset with the govt for making them involved in mass murder, none of them would ever say a word, not a chance in a million years!
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
okay :) ...don't you think you're trying a little too hard?
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh Trying a little to hard for what?
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh Really? I had no idea you were an explosives technician! Where did you learn your trade? When was the last time you worked with this never before seen "thermate"? How many buildings have you set up for demolition? Tell me, how exactly does this never before seen "thermate" work exactly? What part of the demolition process are you best at? How exactly is the chemical composition of this never before seen "thermate" different from "thermite"? Why isn't even thermite used in demolition?
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
Controlled demo would require all buildings be gutted, thousands of critical supports be cut. plumbing, electrical, communication HVAC would all have to be removed and replaced in every floor. Many thousands of pounds of explosives planted, miles of det cord laid throughout every floor. Thousands of sheets of drywall and other wall coverings would have to be hauled out and replaced. It didn't happen.
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
that's not true. If the charges were made of thermate, and prefabricated to fit certain areas, it would not take much time to apply and would not take that many men to do so.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
There isn't the SLIGHTEST indication of "controlled demolition". Steel covered in concrete turns to a dusty, chunky mess when the inner steel structure bends and twists, chunks of concrete explode off the steel structure, that's a fact. The lower floors were undamaged until the upper floors collapsed, controlled demo. starts from the bottom up, not the top down.
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
that's not true.....and there are many videos and eyewitness reports of huge secondary explosions in the lower level of all the buildings. Your logic is flawed, and I recommend you take another look.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh I don't care if someone says they heard ten million "secondary explosions", "secondary explosion" does not mean "controlled demolition". I challenge you to find any large building fire that didnt have explosions going off! It's a common feature of large building fires. Do yourself a favor and talk to the actual firemen who were there, as I did. Do yourself a favor and speak to demolition experts, as I did! You are being spoon fed a bunch of crap that is cooked up by truthers.
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
@Born2Flesh You will never convince me to believe crap that I know did not happen. The truther scenario is a massive fabrication of impossibilities. Every claim they make has been destroyed countless times. They are laughable at best. If you actually educated yourself on each claim, one by one, learned about the science involved with each truther claim, you would quickly realize how idiotic they are for even suggesting the crap they make up! They're claims are more than flawed, they are lies.
youstupidmoron 11 months ago
I'm not a "truther", you stupid ass....and I',m not here to convince you of a damn thing. The only thing that I see impossible about 9/11 is, the whole thing.
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
Building 7 was demolished with explosives. There's some insurance scam there so that's why that's hushed. Hence the traces of thermite. The towers were taken down by two jetliners.
guydecervens 1 year ago
thats not true.....Your logic is flawed and does not agree with certain laws of physics. Go look again....
Born2Flesh 11 months ago
Forget the too many clues in all this...Watch the towers go with new eyes. Turning to dust before it even fell far. How could we have been so naive? Need to start using more than 10% of our noodles before they get cooked. Makes a hardhat guy wanna line it with tinfoil
MrNoblemanoflove 1 year ago
Excellent testimony and it's great to be getting them. Previously, I had only heard Prof. Steven Jones and Niels Harrit for scientists, and had read some of Kevin Ryan's writings, so it's great to now be getting testimonies also from Jeff Farrer and Mark Basile. The new upcoming AE911Truth documentary evidently will be explosive. It will surely tens or hundreds of millions of viewers and should be able to get previously unconvinced people to reconsider that demolition was used.
mikecorbeil 1 year ago 2
Amazing how Jeff’s intro story and choice of wording is so similar to George Bush’s story learning about the crashes while sitting in a classroom in Florida.
psilocyberspaceman 1 year ago
unreal, wow! my eyes are wide open!
daddy68plus5 1 year ago
Please Jeff, no debunker will do any experiment, they only talk and repeat.But the experiment has allready done for them.
watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
Matu1 1 year ago
you dont have to be an architect or engineer to be 100% certain that WTC 1,2&7 were destroyed with explosives. All you need is a look at the facts: the dna reports (1100 'missing bodies' 1400 people blasted to bits, 70 of 343 FDNY recovered, unusual 99day fires, the speed and symmetry in wtc 1,2,7 -the explosiveness of 1&2, wtc7's implosion, FEMA BPAT Appdx C -molten metal. squibs, Pls Watch the video NORTH TOWER EXPLODING by David Chandler and then tell us what you think
winston2015 1 year ago 23
@winston2015
"you dont have to be an architect or engineer to be 100% certain that WTC 1,2&7 were destroyed with explosives."
Yea, it's sufficient to be an total idiot to believe this pile of crap, the blatant lies of the so called "911TruthMovement".
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta If this is a lie, as you say, then there's only one thing you need to do and it's to prove that it's a lie. You won't succeed and probably know this, so you prefer to present empty allegations.
mikecorbeil 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hoyacap88 11 months ago
@winston2015 yup u just have to have eyes, have seen a controlled demolition before on tv or otherwise and not be a brain dead idiot :P
evilpiggehz 8 months ago
Thanks for posting -
pjt03 1 year ago
There's no such thing as a “debunker” when it comes to 9/11. There are only stooges spreading disinformation and telling outright lies. There’s no science behind anything they offer to support the official version of events which is why they have to resort to calling people kooks.
The official conspiracy theory is nothing more than an obscene fairytale that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Go to A&E911Truth to get involved in saving our country from these criminals.
KevinMerck 1 year ago 53
@KevinMerck You'll be saying there's no such thing as BUNKUM next
& straight away after uttering the densest BUNKUM package it has ever been my misfortune to witness
Shame upon your worthlessness, that you so utterly and baselessly slander any & everyone who may have abilities you so obviously don't possess in the slightest degree
It's a worthlessness that should find itself alienated & alone, by rights and naturally
Go & learn something, anything, & also perhaps to respect your elders & betters
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@KevinMerck
Spot on Kev. Scientific evidence is the only worthwhile evidence. Traces of nanothermite were found in the dust, and that is that. Forget about any other elaborate nonsense.
mohammedhegazi 9 months ago
So, is anyone sending their children to Purdue for education? In case you don't know they have a cartoon "explaining" the Boeing-WTC interaction.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago 2
i like where this movement is going!
Latrendi 1 year ago 2
/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
It is the FBI that BELIEVED ....etc.....
If you say you believe something these days, most idiots think that means it must be true. It is possible to say anything without evidence these days and most of the people will be fooled. That is why I check my facts whenever I can. It is also why I became a truther, because I check my facts and found the OS wanting.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
I have no idea where the plan was hatched. Neither has Chomsky. You misheard him, he doesn't say HE believes it was hatched in UAE and Germany, listen carefully, he says, "the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan but was probably implemented in the UAE and Germany, so they essentially had no evidence so they couldn't present it....." Selective hearing again?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "I have no idea where the plan was hatched"
9 years later, and a twoofer doesn't know the basisc.
I am not surprised.
"he doesn't say HE believes it was hatched in UAE and Germany"
So what did he say that you construed as "Chomski is changing his tune"? What was his tone before, what is it now?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
What are you talking about now? Who do YOU think was responsible for 9/11 and where was the plot hatched? N.B. There is no evidence that it was Al Q and Afghanistan. So, do you have any evidence of where it was hatched? No, neither do I, that is why we need a new investigation. The only difference is that you are STILL taken in by what the FBI said they "believed" - even though it is now apparent they had no evidence - and I am not!!
ThePeage 1 year ago
"support for the truther movement is increasing"
it may feel like that inside of the shell.
"Try doing a proper rebuttal paper and get it published in a quality peer-reviewed journal. Good luck."
The entirety of the Twoof movement has nothing interesting out in a peer reviewed journal. There are many peer-reviewed paper out supporting (by and large, with some minor differences) the NIST story of fire-induced collapses.
I can wait till your side does something of relevance.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Hahahahahaha - perhaps you haven't seen that even Naom Chomski is changing his tune?
/watch?v=Mprzq1mA9Jk
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "perhaps you haven't seen that even Naom Chomski is changing his tune?"
a) Moving goal posts big time.
b) What difference does it make where the planning was done? He says the plan was not hatched in Afghanistan (OBL), but in the UAE (KSM) and Germany (Atta). So he in effect says, Al Qaeda did it, with hijacked planes! He "merely" criticizes the cause for war.
c) No change of tune from his earlier chastising of the intellectually bankrupt twoof movement at all. It isn't even mentiond
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Not moving goalposts, just thought you might be interested.
ThePeage 1 year ago
For those who think paint is the "best explanation", it seems Papa got most of his (mis)information from this Internet article:
w w w[dot]bastison[dot]net/RESSOURCES/Critique_Article_Harrit[dot]p d f
Here is a rebuttal (Google translator does its job well & it's self explanatory if you can't read the previous article)
w w w[dot]reopen911[dot]info/11-septembre/commentaires-sur-la-critique-de-jerome-quirant-concernant-l-article-de-niels-harrit/
Read both & make up your own mind
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Sorry - I will clarify - fire alone doesn't remove the support of multiple steel columns within seconds either.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Sorry - I will clarify - fire alone doesn't remove the support of multiple steel columns within seconds either"
And this, too, is a strawman. If that is your clarified version, you obviously do not understand the NIST reports.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@ThePeage
"fire alone doesn't remove the support of multiple steel columns within seconds either."
No, of course not. Tons of steel and something called gravity.
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
You are, once again, putting the cart before the horse - just as you did when you suggested that friction (ffs!) caused the rise in the temperature of the steel before the building collapsed. Are you suggesting that gravity caused the columns in WTC7 to offer no resistance (all at the same time across the entire building, for several floors) BEFORE the collapse actually occurs, as it must do to be in complete freefall? Why do we EVER need CD?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
"just as you did when you suggested that friction"
And i tell you again, i never suggested this regarding WTC7. Read and understand... o wait... yea, we have a special case of retard twoofer here. Nevermind.
"Are you suggesting that gravity caused the columns in WTC7 to offer no resistance"
Nope, i suggest the collapse started with the fall of the roof, what you are not willing to see, because it would nullify your precious argument.
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
Yeah, right.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
Yes, it does, the falling penthouse AND the preceding destruction witnessed by several indiviuals indicates a progressive collapse.
/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
"Can you here that?" ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon.""
Why do you think are they saying this? Because someone spilled the beans, informed the public because Plan A didn't work? Or simply because it really was brought down by fire...
Sure, liars and perpetrators everywhere.
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
Interesting that guy saying "that building is about to blow up" don't you think? Why would anyone ever say that of a building that was going to collapse because of fire? Circumstantial evidence, just like the "evidence" that you offer, of course but I can just as easily say "Why do you think they are saying this?"
In any case, "the building was unsafe and looked as if it was going to collapse therefore NT hasn't been found" ANOTHER logical fallacy. Well done.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
""the building was unsafe and looked"
Again, it didn't just look like it was going to collapse:
"CAN YOU HEAR THAT!"
There was movement in the building. The crumbling was heard and seen...
/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA
"It is DEFINITELY going down."
"Interesting that guy saying "that building is about to blow up" don't you think?"
Because it is a term in everyday language when a building is going to collapse. Why would someone say such thing, when the official explanation was seeded?
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
Really? A term in everyday language for a building about to collapse? Perhaps you could find an example to support that claim?
What do you mean, "Why would someone say such thing, when the official explanation was seeded?" The idea of "seeding" is that only the people doing the "seeding" are aware of it.
Anyway, another argument from ignorance from you and more bleating on about something that is irrelevant regarding the evidence of the NT. Well done again!
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
"The idea of "seeding" is that only the people doing the "seeding" are aware of it."
How did the one who said "its about to blow up" knew it was about to get controlled demolished when no one except the perpetrators were aware of this? Explain.
"Perhaps you could find an example to support that claim?"
Your lack of comprehension and rational thinking is evident.
"the evidence of the NT"
This evidence has been nullified, the incredibility revealed, get over it.
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
"This evidence has been nullified, the incredibility revealed, get over it."
What? By idiots on the Internet claiming the NT is "exploding nano-paint" ?
I will wait for a real scientific rebuttal, thank you.
For someone who claims Bentham's is a crap, pay-to-publish journal with no peer-review etc., you seem very keen to accept bollocks from people who can't even get a paper into Benthams!!!
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
"you seem very keen to accept bollocks from people who can't even get a paper into Benthams!!!"
Look whos talking. You didn't even understand when i was talking about "max. energy output" regarding the MJ of the impacts + deflagrating/burning jet fuel. You insisted the incident to be "ordinary office fires". O please...
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta
There appears to have been foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse. I have no problem with anyone thinking that part of a building will collapse because of fire, I can even accept, if you say so, that a term that would not be used in the UK, might be used in the US - divided by a common language as we are - but there is no way anyone could have known about a CD-like collapse of a SF building because of fire - they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage
"I can even accept, if you say so, that a term that would not be used in the UK, might be used in the US"
...
/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o
Right around the corner...
palasta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePeage
"but there is no way anyone could have known about a CD-like collapse of a SF building because of fire - they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before."
Of course they could. They knew how those building were designed. It was "spineless" design. If it would've been a "solid core design", i would be 100% on your side. ;D
palasta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePeage
"they could not anticipate it because it had never happened before."
Cmon. You should know better. Or do you remember a burning skyscraper (similar build) in a metropole with the fire service nearly incapacitated? It was a worst case scenario. Right, something like this never happened before.
palasta 1 year ago
@ThePeage
PS: No more evasive maneuvers pls. Give me a direct explanation + what indicates that WTC7 only looked like it was going to collapse. How do you know that?
palasta 1 year ago
@palasta ............speaking of impotent Youtube debunker shills.....hello Palastic! LOL!
noozilander 1 year ago
@palasta
What are you asking for? What do you want a direct explanation of that you think I would have the answer for? I would remind you that I am asking for an investigation - if you want answers, you should be asking for that too.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan
True. When I started to look into 9/11, I mostly looked at articles etc that supported the OS. One of the things that struck me very early on is that those supporting the OS seemed to switch effortlessly from one theory to another. E.g. I read a 2006 article that stated the collapse of WTC7 was ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the damage to its facade. This was supported by Skeptics website. When the NIST report came out in 2008, the site fully supported fire-induced collapse.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein "If we bombard the mainstream newspapers" So you think an argument that is 1% right may become 100% right if 100 bovines stampede with it? What if the argument is 0% right?"
What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't important what stance the mainstream media takes ... it just shouild be discussed.
I would like to see a programme about WTC7's collapse. I'd prefer to see a balanced approach but I wouldn't mind if they showed it and gave the NIST explanation...(2)
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
(2) You see, I have a suspicion that if more people saw the collapse of WTC7, even if they were given the NIST explanation (or maybe ESPECIALLY if they were given the NIST explanation ;o) ) more people would be asking questions about 9/11 generally.
Would you have any objection to a programme about WTC7 being aired on mainstream TV?
ThePeage 1 year ago 3
@ThePeage - What is the difference between nano thermite and nano (super)thermite, other than that you can apply nano (super) thermite as a spray, dipping , or spinning?
IWOP1 1 year ago
@ThePeage "if more people saw the collapse of WTC7, even if they were given the NIST explanation"
Most people have neither the time nor the educational background to understand the NIST reports. It was made by experts for experts, with a limited view to an audiance from politics.
"Would you have any objection to a programme about WTC7 being aired on mainstream TV?" - Not at all - if done fairly, with advise from independent engineers of the relevant fields of study. That rules out all of AE911T
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
OK - that would suit me too. No-one from NIST or any other government body, and no one from ae911T. Find experts from relevant fields who have never seen the collapse of WTC7 before - there are lots, I have personally met many, and get them to give their analysis. Oh dear... that would amount to a new investigation and you are against that aren't you?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "No-one from NIST or any other government body, and no one from ae911T."
Yeah, that would be cool. It would be quite ok to interview both sides, to motivate why such a docu is made in the first place (because there is a vocal cult on the internet).
"I have personally met many, and get them to give their analysis." - Did you give them the NIST report (and did they read it), or did you shower them with AE911T woo first? Give experts wrong info, and they'll draw wrong conclusions.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Quite the opposite. In fact, it was NIST's report on WTC7 that really turned me into a "truther" and I always encourage people to explore both sides of an argument. Your baseless assumptions are as wrong about that as they are about other aspects.
Please could you confirm that Harrit uses the word "heat" correctly in the video - where you claim he should have used the word "temperature"?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "In fact, it was NIST's report on WTC7 that really turned me into a "truther""
Don't give me crap. NCSTAR 1-9 has 730 pages (not counting tables of content etc), plus 120 pages Structural Analysis. You did not study that, and not without being guided by prejudice. No f.. way. I claim you have not even read (as opposed to study) that report fully at least once.
Harrit probably uses "heat" wrongly - he meant temperature. If not, he lied.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
I read the precis, the FAQ's and checked the main text when I queried either. But believe what you like.
Harrit would've been wrong had he said "temperature". That you don't grasp this shows you do not have even a basic physics education - even Wiki has it right - look it up
"An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of heat." HEAT, get it?
There is no shame in not knowing this. The shame is in not admitting you are wrong.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Harrit would've been wrong had he said "temperature" "
Are you deliberately playing dumb? The ONLY reason why thermite is used for anything at all is the "tremendous" TEMPERATURE it reaches, which you can use to melt and weld steel, for example. This, although the HEAT of that reaction is rather moderate, only 10% that of ordinary hydrocarbon fuels. So when Harrit starts with "thermite produces TREMENDOUS..." the only TRUE finish to the sentence is "TEMPERATURE". "Heat" would be a LIE
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Do you know what you are supporting when you claim you support the OCT?
Have you read even these two documents?
h t t p:// wtc[dot]nist[dot]gov/ NCSTAR1/ PDF/NCSTAR %201A[dot]p d f
and
(google) Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)
Read them... be as critical of them as you have of Harrit's paper and then we can talk.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage Of course I have read NCSTAR 1A. Silly. I just read the Q&A. I found one error (which, when corrected, would not change the findings).
You got any specific problems there?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Look at this article. It is by a supporter of the OCT. Just see if you can spot any flaws or manipulations in it. Particularly, take a look at the graphic - taken from NIST's report. What would you say of this graphic if it was from a "truther" doc? Would you think it was plausible? What would you think if it formed part of a truther computer simulation of the collapse?
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory To Rest August 22nd, 2008
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "it isn't important what stance the mainstream media takes ... it just shouild be discussed."
Do you think that the mainstream media should discuss false premises with an open mind? If you do, you are a fool.
"I would like to see a programme about WTC7's collapse" - You can see it. The result is known as NCSTAR 1-9
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Yes, the one that had a predetermined conclusion (totally unscientific) and stated they found no evidence of explosives... until they were exposed. They didn't find because they didn't look. Someone else does look and they find evidence of highly exothermic material (possible explosives). Do the scientists at NIST say, "wow, we didn't look, maybe we should have done" or do they ignore it? Which would be more scientific and/or honest?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Someone else does look and they find evidence of highly exothermic material (possible explosives)."
No. The incompetent or dishonest team of Harrit, Jones, Farrer e.al. did NOT find thermitic material. They found paint and primer. Their own data disproves their claims. Their SEMs show Kaolin pigments in the red and micaceous iron oxide, used in anti-corrosion primer, in the grey layer. Figure 29 shows that the chips don't react like actual nano-thermite.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Denial ain't no river in Egypt!
If you keep saying it to yourself over and over and over again, one day you may have convinced yourself of this.
Enjoy the rest of your life.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage It is absolutely necessary that you "truther" disciples see through the LIES of Harrit and Co. You MUST understand that thermite does NOT release "tremendous" heat - you must understand how LITTLE energy is released by thermite! Because it bears directly on any claim of demolition by thermite. A proper understanding of this exposes the LIES in the paper, and removes the idea of thermitic demolition from remotely possible to practically impossible.
Learn what 3.9 kJ/g can and can't do!
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Is that why you lied in an attempt to discredit Harrit? Because it is "absolutely necessary" that "truthers" see through the "lies" of others? Is that why you claim the DSC trace does not show an exothermic reaction? In the hope that people who are reading your crap believe you because they've never used a DSC and don't know how it works or what that trace shows?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "why you claim the DSC trace does not show an exothermic reaction?"
Liar. I di not claim that at all. Where and when did I say that? QUOTE me!
Let me walk you through this:
1. Did Harrit say that "thermite produces tremendous heat", yes or no?
2. How much heat does thermite produce?
3. Is that tremendous? Compare the value with the heat of some other, and more ordinary, exothermic reactions, that you would say do not release "tremendous" heat.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
"1. Did Harrit say that "thermite produces tremendous heat", yes or no?"
See above - I'm not wasting any more time on you.
ThePeage 1 year ago
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
In NIST's FAQs, they ask themselves
"Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?" Read the answer they give. What question are they answering?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Read the answer they give. What question are they answering?"
You want me to quote NIST as stating, too, that thermite releases tremendous heat, right? Would that make a false statement true? NIST is talking sloppily there (they, too, ought to have said "temperature"), and I generously assumed that Niels was merely sloppy, too, when he said heat. Because in reality, if you MEAN heat, then the adjective "tremendous" is a LIE.
Your choice: Harrit sloppy, or a liar?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
No, twit!
I asked what question they were answering. Read the reply - are they answering the question they are posing or are they answering a different QUESTION? This is very basic obfuscation - answer a different question from the one posed and hope the person asking the question doesn't notice. What question would their answer be answering? Oh - I really have better things to do - believe what you want.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "I asked what question they were answering"
Whoops! That goal post moved quickly!! Were we not discussing Harrit, Farrer and their shitty paper? Were we not discussing the FALSE claim that "thermite produces tremendous heat"? Can we please finish that discussion? All you need to do to finish that discussion is to answers the easy yes/no question:
Does thermite release "tremendous" heat - yes or no?
(And it follows whether Harrit was WRONG or not)
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
The thermite reaction produces tremendous heat. That is what Harrit said and this is accurate. Thank you and goodnight.
I am not moving the goalposts - we've done this to death and since you have lied about what Harrit said and when I proved you had lied, you then lied about what you had said. I can't see the point of going on. See (2)
What I was trying to point out to you - had you grasped my question - was that the evidence of NT is largely irrelevant... see(2)
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "The thermite reaction produces tremendous heat. That is what Harrit said and this is accurate"
Ok. You (and Harrit) are still WRONG.
The thermite reaction produces less than 4 kJ/g heat. Yes or no?
The cow dung reaction produces at most 15 kJ/g heat. Yes or no?
That is 3.75 times MORE than the thermite reaction - yes or no?
No I ask you: Does the burning of cow dung produce "tremendous" heat? Yes or no?
How about jet fuel?
How about office contents?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
See my reply above. If you want to waste your time ranting, be my guest but you would be far better looking at NIST's Report and finding out if that is correct than the irrelevent exercise of trying to convince yourself that Harrit et al are wrong.
ThePeage 1 year ago
"the evidence of NT is largely irrelevant"
I could not agree more. How could a study that produces FALSE evidence (or, more precisely, interprets the evidence erroneously and comes to false conclusions) ever be relevant?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
Fine! Disregard it completely and get a separate, independent team to look at the dust - NIST didn't do it! However, if this were done and the chips were found to be present and were found to be highly sophisticated, highly exothermic nanotechnology and no other explanation for their presence could be found, I would say the material might have CONTRIBUTED to the collapses, wouldn't you?
ThePeage 1 year ago 2
@ThePeage "if this were done and the chips were found to be present and were found to be highly sophisticated, highly exothermic nanotechnology and no other explanation for their presence could be found"
It's been done already, by Farrer, Harrit and Co:
- No, they are not highly sophisticated
- No, they are not particularly highly energetic
- Yes, another explanation can easily be found: Paint.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
So are you saying their work can be trusted now? I thought you claim they are incompetent and dishonest - that they can't be trusted to do anything correctly. So, this being the case, surely you would want proper, decent scientists to study the chips. They have been show NOT to be paint because paint does not become energetic at 430 C and leave Fe-rich microspheres in the residue - no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "So are you saying their work can be trusted now? ... surely you would want proper, decent scientists to study the chips."
No. Do the logic. There are two possibilities:
a) either, their data is good. Then I know already it isn't thermite, not very energetic, nothing to worry about, and very likely paint anyway. No need for further study then
b) Or their data is bad. In which case I have even less reason to consider the chips relevant.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
(2) .. because even if this paper had not been produced, even if no NT had been found or if they turn out to be liars, wrong or stupid, the absence of their evidence does not SUPPORT the OS. Debunking evidence FOR an alternative “theory” does not mean that a wrong one is correct by default. The NIST Report on WTC3 is flawed (at best). See (3)
ThePeage 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
(3) You said you wouldn’t mind a documentary about WTC7. What would you think if Sunder was interviewed on the programme about their investigation and was asked, “Did you test for any accelerants, incendiaries or explosives?” What would you think when he says, “No. We only considered the possibility of fire” What would you think and, maybe more importantly, what do you think viewers would think?
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "What would you think when he says, “No. We only considered the possibility of fire”"
I would think he was being responsible with his use of taxpayers' money.
I would expect the interviewers to ask him why they did not test for it, and I would expect Sunder to give very good reasons. Mainly: There was none of the INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs that characterize explosive CDs, and no known method or theory of thermite demolitions. But there was fire, and fire destroys stuff.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
You are kidding!!! Taxpayers money was completely wasted cos NIST had a predetermined conclusion! You swallow their "loud bang" explanation for not looking for accelerants and incendiaries??? (Even excluding the possibility of the use of non-conventional, less brisant explosives). Ask the average arsonist which is better, fire on its own .. or fire plus an incendiary. Incendiaries don't go bang, bang - and fire alone doesn't destroy multiple columns within seconds either.
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "NIST had a predetermined conclusion!"
Jones, Harrit, Farrer had a predetermined conclusion, which they wrote down even though it was contradicted by their own data (7.5 > 3.9, Fig. 29 shows marked dissimilarity with nanothermite, SEM images show Kaolin)
"You swallow their "loud bang" explanation" - yes, for no explosive CD comes without one. Or can you show one?
"Ask the average arsonist" - I trust experienced fire investigators with relevant schientific degreed a tad more.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PooperOystein
"- Yes, another explanation can easily be found: Paint." - hahahaha :DD ..paint.. xDD
Oystein - STUNDIE of the year!
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan Having fun with childish name-games?
"hahahaha :DD ..paint.. xDD"
When twoofers run ouft of arguments...
Yes, paint. The plate-like particles rich in Al, Si and O look just like Kaolin - same size (nm-range), too! And guess what elements Kaolin is composed of, huh? Al, Si, and O (and H, which Farrer generally glosses over). And guess what Kaolin and Fe2O3 make together? Orange-red PAINT.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein says "Orange-red PAINT."
LMFAO!
So does orange-red PAINT react with a highly exothermic reaction and a by-product of molten iron spherules too?
Would seem to be a very dangerous thing to apply to steel, if it does!
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "So does orange-red PAINT react with a highly exothermic reaction" - If it is resin-based, absolutely YES. Remember: thermite CANNOT explain the 6 and 7.5 kJ/g, it only has 3.9. But the Harrit/Farrer paper says, correctly that the inorganics are in a matrix of organic material, and THAT is the highly exothermic stuff in their samples! Pretty much ALL organic materials are more highly energetic than thermite! And no, it is NOT dangerous, as micron layers are so thin!
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein says "Pretty much ALL organic materials are more highly energetic than thermite!"
The tests that Farrer and co. did shows this to be untrue.
If it were true, what possible application would there be for thermite???
You make NO sense.
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "The tests that Farrer and co. did shows this to be untrue."
Look at Farrer's (Jones' ...) paper: "It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g"
Now look up "energy density" on wikipedia, and find the values for thermite (given there as 4.0), wood, jet fuel. paper is shredded wood, so to say, and should have similar energy density
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein If thermite releases a maximum of 4.0 kj/g and never more, why is the U.S. military developing nano-thermite?
By your logic they have nothing to gain in developing the smaller particles.
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "why is the U.S. military developing nano-thermite?"
Good question. Do you have an answer?
Do you have an idea why Farrer and Co. state that thermite releases a maximum of 3.9 kj/g and never more? Are they wrong? Why does Wikipedia state it? Is WP wrong?
Or could it be that you just don't understand the thermodynamics of the thermite reaction vs. combustion of hydrocarbons?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein says "Do you have an idea why Farrer and Co. state that thermite releases a maximum of 3.9 kj/g and never more?"
...probably because they were comparing what they witnessed to standard thermite and were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite.
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "(they) were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite."
They were indeed. Do you know what their opinion is where that extra energy came from - in other words, what the REALLY highly energetic material in the chips was? Hint: It isn't thermite, and it isn't nano-thermite.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
You still haven't explained the by-product of the iron micro-spheres that Farrer and co. found as a result of igniting what you think is orange-red paint.......
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "You still haven't explained the by-product of the iron micro-sphere"
That's right. Do you think iron micro-spheres don't occur in ashes of hydrocarbon conflagrations?
"You seem to be arguing from the position of ego rather than reason and/or logic"
You are not arguing at all. I refer to the paper and provide data, and analyse it. You don't even understand it and dodge questions. You can't be the judge. Peage misrepresents what I say, moves goal posts and makes false statements.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@noozilander "By your logic they have nothing to gain in developing the smaller particles."
Wrong. I already told you one of the interesting properties of thermite. Hint: Energy density is NOT one of them. You have no idea what nanothermite is, right?
"(they) were surprised to see their NT react more vigourously than standard thermite"
They were indeed. And what is their explanation for the discrepancy, hm?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@noozilander "By your logic they have nothing to gain in developing the smaller particles."
No. That is by YOUR logic, because you seem to think that the interesting property of the (nano)thermite reaction is the energy (or heat) it realeases. That's what Farrer, Harrit etc. make you believe.
But that's wrong. I already gave you one interesting property, other than HEAT release. There are more interesting properties of nano-thermite. But you wouldn' know that, science-illiterate as you are.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
And by the way, you are a pooper. You keep trashing the comment section with your garbage not knowing what are you talking about. In the post at jerk forum it reveals what kind of person you really are. You said that the gray layer is a primer, but when Mackey and sunstealer told you that it is oxidised steel, you just appealed to authority without any counter argument. "I guess I will have to retract comments"- what a douchebag...
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan "You said that the gray layer is a primer" - You are right, I did that following Sunstealer's lead, and you are right, as there is hardly any data available on the grey layer, the assertion rested on weak evidence. Farrer also has no clue what it is. I do not believe Mackey on authority. But if Sunstealer retracts his position, mine becomes too weak.
Would be good if you twoofers had the courage to retract sometimes.
"you just appealed to authority" - All twoofers do.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein When you will discover that the aluminum in your "kaolinite" can move around when you treat it with a solvent, and at the same time you could provide a reference to a chemical reaction by a clay mineral, which provides elemental iron. It would be sensational!
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@noozilander "If it were true, what possible application would there be for thermite???"
While the HEAT (energy release) of the the thermite reaction is relatively low, the products reach tremendous TEMPERATURES. Sounds illogical, but only to a science illiterate. The reason is, thermite reaction releases no gasses that dissipate heat very quickly. The usefullness of thermite lies in its TEMPERATURE, not its HEAT.
It melts iron easily, but only very SMALL amounts per mass unit thermite
PapaOystein 1 year ago
To drive the point home, noozilander: PAPER releases more energy when it burns that either thermite or the red-grey chip samples. Now what about wall paper? Wall paper is a LOT thicker than these red and grey layers! Can wallpaper burn? Absoluteky YES. Is wallpaper dangerous to buildings? Absolutely NO. Is an application of this red-orange paint dangerous? Absolutely NO, as it is less material, and less energetic material, than wallpaper! Farrer sells you for a fool!
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein PAPER releases more energy when it burns that either thermite or the red-grey chip samples. Now what about wall paper?
Are you refusing to take medication for keeping your mood stable or what, ya fuckin' lunatic?
LOL!
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander "Are you refusing to take medication for keeping your mood stable or what, ya fuckin' lunatic?"
You have never looked up the chemical and physical properties of either thermite or ordinary organic combustibles, you don't understand thermodynamics, and you scientific illiteracy shows. You probably have not read, much less understood, the Harrit/Farrer/... paper, and therefore can't understand why it's shit.
"You make NO sense."
I make a lot of sense, but you are too dumb to know
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein says "I make a lot of sense, but you are too dumb to know"
LOL!
No you do a lot of obfuscating and a lot of ignoring, but you make very little sense.
You seem to be arguing from the position of ego rather than reason and/or logic.
The Peage is all over you and you are right to feel silly and somewhat embarassed, considering some of the crap you put out!
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander
"You seem to be arguing from the position of ego rather than reason and/or logic."
Sure, for absolute laypersons, persons who actually believe jet fuel did not contributed in any way to the fires, it might be logical.
It makes no sense to discuss subjects withsome like you or thepeage, who doesn't understand and isn't capable to differ.
palasta 1 year ago
@noozilander "The Peage is all over you"
Peage doesn't properly understand thermodynamics and has no idea what "tremendous heat" is and what "tremendous temperature" is, and is therefore easily fooled by Harrot, Farrer and Co. Peage does not understand why 6 kJ/g means the highly energetic material is NOT POSSIBLY thermite, or nano-thermite.
You wouldn't know all that, because you are totally illiterate in physics and chemistry - you have failed to address even one scientific argument yet.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@PapaOystein It's the opposite. Sunstealer wrote that it is kaolin. The Stinktier, ElMondoHummus, said that: "aluminum atoms bound to silicon and oxygen atoms" and I agree. Aluminum-silicate will not separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. So pooper, it would become Sunstealer and you well to provide a reference for a swelling reaction by a clay particle with MEK comparable to that observed by the red/grey chips.
But it requires to raise your butt- so it's impossible to you to do it
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan "pooper"
Hello child :)
"Aluminum-silicate will not separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK"
Did you see the plate-like particles? What are they, if not Kaolin? The sample they soaked in MEK was not analysed prior to soaking, and they think it has surface contaminations. Pretty worthless sample, They show the "after" state, but nit the "before" state,therefore we cannot know if anything got separated or had been separate all along.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein The XEDS maps in the paper were done on broken chips (except one). Read : "Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,
located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very
little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the
matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration
and separation of the components. This is a significant
result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not
bound chemically."
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan "Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon"
We don't know if that region contained the same nano-structures. Maybe that specimen was contaminated with SiO2. The authors mention the possibility of such contamination.
As I said, that deprecates this particular analysis.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein If you are so sure that the science of Mssrs Jones, Harrit, Farrer and co. is wrong, then why don't you contact them and actively refute their evidence by scientific method? They want to find the scientific truth and would welcome your inquiry.
Or are you just another impotent Youtube debunker shill like so many others?
noozilander 1 year ago
@noozilander
"They want to find the scientific truth and would welcome your inquiry."
Someone who suggests 100t of NT were used to demolish the WTC is surely not interested in finding any kind of truth.
palasta 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
"We don't know...." Are you suggesting that "we don't know" means "we don't find out". Shame on you!
ThePeage 1 year ago
@ThePeage "Are you suggesting that "we don't know" means "we don't find out". Shame on you!"
And again, again, and yet again, you misrepresent what I write. You dishonesty, directed personally at me, starts to amount to libel, and character assassination. Why must you sink so low?
"We don't know" means "we don't know". And the reason we don't know is that Harrit, and Farrer, in their total incompetence, failed to find out in time. Their failure. Not mine. Shame on them.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
What?
"the reason we don't know is that Harrit, and Farrer, in their total incompetence, failed to find out in time."
What ARE you talking about?
ThePeage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PapaOystein says "You dishonesty, directed personally at me, starts to amount to libel, and character assassination. Why must you sink so low?
"We don't know" means "we don't know". And the reason we don't know is that Harrit, and Farrer, in their total incompetence, failed to find out in time."
Well this is rich, Papa.
You cry about being libelled and your character (coughs!) being attacked, yet you are here to reply.
continued.................
noozilander 1 year ago